IxDA - Comments for "A well-argued reply."http://www.ixda.org/node/15753
Comments for "A well-argued reply."enA well-argued reply.http://www.ixda.org/node/15753#comment-49452
<p>On Sep 6, 2004, at 11:29 AM, Larry Tesler wrote:</p>
<p>&gt;<i> Many interface designers today are supported by an experimental<br />
</i>&gt;<i> psychologist who conducts usability studies. Add a cognitive<br />
</i>&gt;<i> psychologist to the team and you win the benefit of another body of<br />
</i>&gt;<i> knowledge as well as an additional perspective.<br />
</i><br />
Agreed. Or even better, marry one, like I did.</p>
<p>&gt;<i> Some individuals possess two or all three of these skills. But there<br />
</i>&gt;<i> are not enough of them to go around. Even if there were, a team of one<br />
</i>&gt;<i> makes a poor brainstorming group and lacks critical review.<br />
</i><br />
This is true, and I'm not sure I ever implied there should be teams of<br />
one, just people who are skilled in all three areas. (And if I did,<br />
then I retract it.) I find the lack of these kind of people largely an<br />
educational issue. To be fair, the education system is changing.<br />
Graphic design for a long time evolved through the 20th century as the<br />
schools started teaching across multiple aspects of the field to<br />
produce better graphic designers. The end result were students leaving<br />
school who had been given enough background to really grow in it. The<br />
same will happen with software design as the school offerings are now<br />
moving towards a more multidisciplinary approach.</p>
<p>Too many of us in the field today have had to teach ourselves the<br />
various aspects of the various aspect of interface design because many<br />
of our higher education lacked programs that were broader and more<br />
inclusive of visual, interaction and information design as a single<br />
education program. Nothing wrong with that, but it does limit the<br />
field. Given how long it took to get proper comp sci programs in<br />
school, it seems interface design is lagging about a decade or two<br />
behind our engineering counterparts. All in good time I imagine.</p>
<p>Andrei</p>
Mon, 06 Sep 2004 18:53:20 +0000Andrei Herasimchukcomment 49452 at http://www.ixda.orgA well-argued reply.http://www.ixda.org/node/15753#comment-49445
<p>On Sep 6, 2004, at 1:03 AM, Jef Raskin wrote:</p>
<p>&gt;<i> It is true that few have that background, which is unfortunate. That<br />
</i>&gt;<i> few do doesn't mean that they shouldn't. Because of that lack of<br />
</i>&gt;<i> background, many make elementary mistakes that a bit of study would<br />
</i>&gt;<i> prevent. I, too, had thought that such study was unimportant until I<br />
</i>&gt;<i> took the time to learn about it. It turned out to be very helpful.<br />
</i><br />
I won't argue against anything being helpful. I would even say learning<br />
how to play a musical instrument is helpful to an interface designer.<br />
But the point was that I made a claim on what I think people who want<br />
to do interface design needed to be able to do (visual, interaction and<br />
information), and that set did not require cognitive psych skills. You<br />
made a claim that I left out other skills, implying that those skills<br />
were &quot;required.&quot; Quotes because you didn't say required, but that's<br />
what the implication was to me.</p>
<p>&gt;<i> Lastly, that a person has &quot;worked on projects that tens of millions of<br />
</i>&gt;<i> people have used that have earned more than a billion dollars&quot; could<br />
</i>&gt;<i> say no more than they were a major drug kingpin. That doesn't mean<br />
</i>&gt;<i> that the project was any good, just that it has had commercial<br />
</i>&gt;<i> success. The two ideas should not be confused. I, too, have &quot;worked on<br />
</i>&gt;<i> projects that tens of millions of people have used that have earned<br />
</i>&gt;<i> more than a billion dollars&quot; and I can also say that I have created<br />
</i>&gt;<i> such projects, but I would never use that as a reason to believe that<br />
</i>&gt;<i> the work was good.<br />
</i><br />
A pointless thread in the discussion, so I'll let that one die for a<br />
change. (I can hear everyone cheering through the DSL cable.)</p>
<p>Andrei</p>
Mon, 06 Sep 2004 18:41:06 +0000Andrei Herasimchukcomment 49445 at http://www.ixda.orgA well-argued reply.http://www.ixda.org/node/15753#comment-49437
<p>At 6:36 PM -0700 9/5/04, Andrei Herasimchuk wrote:<br />
&gt;<i>In fact, I know of few professional interface designers working on<br />
</i>&gt;<i>big or high-profile projects that have that sort of specific<br />
</i>&gt;<i>scientific or cognitive psych background. (I don't doubt they exist,<br />
</i>&gt;<i>but they don't run in the groups I run in.) And I guess since I<br />
</i>&gt;<i>worked on projects that tens of millions of people have used that<br />
</i>&gt;<i>have earned more than a billion dollars in my career, I suppose that<br />
</i>&gt;<i>since I don't have the academic background of cognitive psych, I<br />
</i>&gt;<i>guess I'm not really an interface designer in your world because I<br />
</i>&gt;<i>lack the &quot;sufficent skills.&quot;<br />
</i>&gt;<i><br />
</i>&gt;<i>I claim I am, *without* those specific skills.<br />
</i><br />
It is not necessary for one person to possess every skill that may be<br />
useful in carrying out a team endeavor.</p>
<p>Many interface designers today are supported by an experimental<br />
psychologist who conducts usability studies. Add a cognitive<br />
psychologist to the team and you win the benefit of another body of<br />
knowledge as well as an additional perspective.</p>
<p>Some individuals possess two or all three of these skills. But there<br />
are not enough of them to go around. Even if there were, a team of<br />
one makes a poor brainstorming group and lacks critical review.</p>
<p>Larry Tesler</p>
Mon, 06 Sep 2004 18:29:17 +0000Larry Teslercomment 49437 at http://www.ixda.orgA well-argued reply.http://www.ixda.org/node/15753#comment-49360
<p>&gt;<i> I know of few professional interface designers working on big or<br />
</i>&gt;<i> high-profile projects that have that sort of specific scientific or<br />
</i>&gt;<i> cognitive psych background. (I don't doubt they exist, but they don't<br />
</i>&gt;<i> run in the groups I run in.)<br />
</i><br />
It is true that few have that background, which is unfortunate. That<br />
few do doesn't mean that they shouldn't. Because of that lack of<br />
background, many make elementary mistakes that a bit of study would<br />
prevent. I, too, had thought that such study was unimportant until I<br />
took the time to learn about it. It turned out to be very helpful.</p>
<p>I am working with a number of universities to see that this kind of<br />
background material gets into the HCI curriculum, and I hope that<br />
everybody on this list either has or will acquire a working knowledge<br />
of applicable cog. psych. and quantitative methods. It is time to move<br />
HCI from a seat-of-the pants craft to an engineering discipline. And if<br />
someone objects that that removes creativity or art from the process,<br />
it just means that they haven't done much engineering.</p>
<p>Lastly, that a person has &quot;worked on projects that tens of millions of<br />
people have used that have earned more than a billion dollars&quot; could<br />
say no more than they were a major drug kingpin. That doesn't mean that<br />
the project was any good, just that it has had commercial success. The<br />
two ideas should not be confused. I, too, have &quot;worked on projects that<br />
tens of millions of people have used that have earned more than a<br />
billion dollars&quot; and I can also say that I have created such projects,<br />
but I would never use that as a reason to believe that the work was<br />
good.</p>
Mon, 06 Sep 2004 08:03:55 +0000Jef Raskincomment 49360 at http://www.ixda.orgA well-argued reply.http://www.ixda.org/node/15753#comment-49260
<p>On Sep 5, 2004, at 5:43 PM, Jef Raskin wrote:</p>
<p>&gt;<i> I am getting the impression that Andrei has a tendency to think that<br />
</i>&gt;<i> his strengths (presumably on the visual/conceptual side) are the only<br />
</i>&gt;<i> essential elements in interface design and that where he does not have<br />
</i>&gt;<i> skills (e.g. on the quantitative side) he just denigrates the utility<br />
</i>&gt;<i> of those approaches.<br />
</i><br />
I first said having those skills was beneficial, but I claim they are<br />
not a ***requirement*** in order to do the job, which is what your<br />
phrasing indicated.</p>
<p>&quot;It is not sufficient to have the skills he mentions...&quot;</p>
<p>In fact, I know of few professional interface designers working on big<br />
or high-profile projects that have that sort of specific scientific or<br />
cognitive psych background. (I don't doubt they exist, but they don't<br />
run in the groups I run in.) And I guess since I worked on projects<br />
that tens of millions of people have used that have earned more than a<br />
billion dollars in my career, I suppose that since I don't have the<br />
academic background of cognitive psych, I guess I'm not really an<br />
interface designer in your world because I lack the &quot;sufficent skills.&quot;</p>
<p>I claim I am, *without* those specific skills.</p>
<p>Is that better?</p>
<p>Andrei</p>
Mon, 06 Sep 2004 01:36:37 +0000Andrei Herasimchukcomment 49260 at http://www.ixda.org